In the comments on an earlier post there has been discussion of an alleged “secret” shown to Mary of Guise, the mother of Mary, Queen of Scots, sometime between the death of her husband, King James V of Scotland, in 1542 and her assumption of the regency in 1554 when she visited Rosslyn to confer with Sir William Sinclair. This story is best known from an article by Philip Coppens.

Now, this letter is not obscure, hidden, or unknown. It has been in print for two hundred years, and the full text is below with the relevant passage in bold:

Be it kend till all men be thir present letres, ws Marie Queen Dowarere of Scotland, to be bundin and oblist, and be thir present letres bindiss and oblisses us, to ane honourable man and our well belovit Sir William Sinclar of Roflin, knyt: Forasmeikle as the said Sir William is bundin and oblist to us, in specials service and manrent, for all the days of his life, to gang and ryde with us, and to tak our sauld part with his kyn, servandis, and freyndis, that will do for him contrare and against all that leiff or denay his allegiance to the crowne of Scotland, and authority thereof allenarly exceptit, as at mare'length is containit in the said Sir William's band made to us thereupon; herfor we bind and obliss us to the said Sir William, in likwis that we sall be leill and true maistres to him, his counsell and secret shewen to us we sall keip secret, and in all mattres gif to him the best and trewest counsell we can, as we sall be requirt therto, and fall not witt his stealth nor damnage, but we sall stop it att our power, and sall tak his aiked and plain part, maintain and defend him be ourself, our penssionaris, servandis, partaikers and assistants, that will do for us, in all his actions, cauiles and querrils, contraire and against all men that leive, or denay the crowne of Scotland and authority thereof, being allenarly except, and we sall be readie att all time to maintain and defend him, as said is, als aft as we sall be requirt thereto, be ourself, our men, freyndis, assistants, and partakaris with us, and all that we may parches, wytbout dissimulation, fraude or gile, and generallie we sall do all that pertens, or is knawne to pertane to ane Maistres in the manteyning and defending of hir men and servandys; and attour, for the gud, faithfull, trew and thankfull service done and to be done to us be the said Sir William, we have given and grantit, and be thir our present letres gewis and grantis to the said Sir William, ane yeirlie pensioun of the soume of three hundreth mark is, usual money of Scotland, to be payit to him yeirlie, dureing his and our lifetyme, att twa termis in the year, that is to say, Whitsunday and Mertimes in winter, be equale portions, begynand the sirst payment att the fest of Whitsunday, in the year of God 1546 yeire, and binds and obliss us, that within the space of ane yeir next to cum we sall gif the said Sir William, assignation of the males or ferms of our landis in competent place, whereof he may get yerely thankfull payment of his said pension of three hundredth markis att the termis above written. In wittness of the quhilk thing, to thir present letres subscrivit with our hand, our signet is affix it, att Striveling the third day of June, the yeir of God 1546 yeirs.

The earliest version of the story that this represents an esoteric mystery is in (who else but) Richard Leigh and Michael Bagent’s 1989 book The Temple and the Lodge. There they quote the letter as follows, omitting all else: “We bind us to the said Sir William, in likwis that we shall be leill and true maistres to him, his counseil and secret shewen to us we sail keep secret.” From this they spin a tale of esoteric secrets, ignoring the clear context of the letter, which is a standard feudal obligation and grant of pension. This is repeated in in Carol Schaefer’s 2002 biography Mary, Queen of Scots: A Spiritual Biography, where the author imagines that the Scottish royals were intimately involved in anti-Catholic esoterica. Philip Coppens, in The Stone Puzzle of Rosslyn Chapel (2004, p. 23) wrote that Mary of Guise, promised to be loyal to William Sinclair after seeing “a great secret within Rosslyn,” which he placed in quotation marks and attributed to a “1545” letter from Mary to William. It was obvious that Coppens never read the letter; nevertheless, his words were repeated as fact in the 2004 book Guardians of the Holy Grail by Mark Amaru Pinkham and the 2006 novel Edinburgh Knights by Elaine Pomm, as well as the 2012 nonfiction book Da Vinci’s Last Commission by Fiona McLaren. When Alan Butler and John Ritchie quoted it in this year Rosslyn Chapel Decoded, it had moved back to 1546 and read quite differently:

We bind and oblige ourselves to the said Sir William, and shall be a loyal and true mistress to him. His counsel and secret shown to us we shall keep secret, and in all manners give to him the best and truest counsel we can, as we shall be required thereto.

Butler, incapable of understanding the history he claims to explain, expresses shock that the queen mother would place herself beneath William: “Obviously the term mistress did not carry its modern connotation, but it still suggests a position of humility that sounds unusual in the case of a monarch talking to a subject.” Butler borrowed the line, almost wholesale, from the 1999 book Rosslyn: Guardians of the Secret of the Holy Grail by Tim Wallace-Murphy and Mary Hopkins, who wrote that the letter was “more like that of a subservient person to a superior lord than of a sovereign to her vassal.” Obviously none of these people had read the whole thing, or if they did, understood it. If it seems more excessive than other letters of its era, it was also written during a time when Mary was working to consolidate power for herself and to take over the regency. She needed all the friends she could find. Let’s take the quotation part by part. First, “bind and oblige” is a legal term in use down to the modern era in the British Isles, and is also found in early American documents. It was the common form of writing a contract. It is neither special nor bizarre. In this case, it is used as part of a fealty oath. Consider, for example, the letter of fealty provided in the opposite direction from James Earle Douglas to James II: “I bind and oblige me till our said soverayne lord…” Feudal bonds worked in two directions, and the king provided a similar pledge to oblige himself as master and protector of the vassal. The Holy Roman Emperor Otto I, for example, told his vassals “now you shall be mine.” Such oaths were nearly a thousand years old. Do I even have to explain that “mistress” is not a term of “submission” but is rather the feminine form of master? Would anyone accuse a man who said he was master of another of being subservient? Mary pledged to be a loyal and true mistress (i.e. female master) to William. This is an assertion of supremacy entirely in keeping with feudal oaths of obligation and fealty. In the next line the word “secret” is the key element causing trouble for Sinclair speculators. Here Mary is using “secret” in the older sense, derived from Middle English usage, whereby it means “a confidence.” In other words, the “secret” is part of the “counsel” and refers to confidential advice that Mary promises not to make public, and also promises to repay his counsel with that of her own. It cannot, given the context, refer to the Holy Bloodline of Jesus or the Holy Grail, in which case it could not logically fit in a sentence devoted to legal obligations and pension payments—you know, the boring stuff of government. After all, if it was an esoteric secret, why write it in a formal letter of state entered into the Scottish royal archives?

This is clearly a very standard confirmation of the obligations of Lord to vassal and visa-verso. With the lamentable death of a King, the new King/Queen or, in this case, Regent, the bonds between the Crown and the various nobles and other holding office and lands at the pleasure of the Crown need to be reaffirmed. In Mary's case, especially, she needs to secure the loyalty of large landholders as a hedge against rebellion or attempts at usurpation by other nobles.

This type of relationship and confirmation of duties and obligations between the parties involved is such a basic part of medieval kingship/governance that anyone even with the most basic understanding of the medieval era would understand what this is.

You hit upon the key problem: having even a basic understanding of the era they pretend to be experts on.

Reply

The Other J.

9/30/2013 06:17:24 pm

Having a basic understanding of the language and its context seems like a consistent issue with alternative history -- Middle English, Ogham, runes, Phoenician, Sumerian, hieroglyphs, etc.

It seems like a particularly weird sort of abstract colonization when you take away a culture's language and its meaning and re-interpret it in your own image. That takes the history of a past culture that cannot speak for itself away from it.

Reply

Gunn

10/1/2013 03:42:31 am

We recall that in Newfoundland, just north of the St. Lawrence Seaway, a short-lived spectrum of a past culture could not adequately speak for itself, and needed to be spoken about, re-interpreted. In this case, something was added to, not taken away from. It works both ways very well.

But that required context and an understanding of history, which you deny in the case of this letter, which has a very clear context.

Gunn

10/1/2013 04:37:14 am

I'm not denying anything...I'm just saying that we don't know what confidences may have been involved. Esoteric Sinclair knowledge could have been involved. The historical context is vitally important, I agree, but this is not a good way of saying Sinclair shared no esoteric knowledge. He could have, quite easily, and that would have been part of any number or types of confidences. We can't be certain about what we don't know....

Unfortunately for you in this case, Pandora's Box lid has cracked open just far enough for speculation, some of it bordering logical. Don't take it personal. I think you're doing a great job!

Thane

10/1/2013 09:57:49 am

But in this case, given the context of the letter and the culture of the time, the power relationships, the norms of communication, etc...the letter does not indicate anything more than what it appears to be. There is no evidence of it being otherwise.
Without evidence you have baseless speculation...not even a hypothesis which requires at least some reason to believe the item is other than it is.

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck.

Gunn

10/1/2013 01:38:39 pm

Well, there's the lesson of the Ugly Duckling. Look what he turned into.

"...the letter does not indicate anything more than what it appears to be..."

To me, it indicates that confidences are part of the deal. Who is to say what manner of confidences these are, or can be? You want to deal with a comfortable generality. How can we pigeon-hole what confidential information is eventually shared in any given relationship? We can't, so we can't suppose, precisely, what kind of sharing is going on. There is certainly an implied intent to keep secrets, or confidential information in the Letter, without giving anything away publicly by saying so. The contents of the Letter can be taken to include keeping Sinclair esoteric knowledge confidential. This cannot be ruled out, or oversimplified by saying the promise of confidentiality didn't include esoteric knowledge. There is a bit of room left for healthy speculation, still. The Sinclair "passing of knowledge" door cannot so easily be closed.

Gerald Sinclair

1/1/2016 09:48:09 pm

This was just out of the time frame of our recently published book The Enigmatic Sinclairs' based purely on primary source evidence, not the sort of sources quoted in the posting, but I did have a look at this point and corresponded by email with a number supporting the 'secrets' at Rosslyn theory and pointed out to them this was simply a standard letter sent to all those Mary was asking to support her, which obviously in the circumstances was initially at least to be kept secret.
You will find this sort of jumping to conclusions not just in Sinclair History but in all Scottish History, and for that matter in most History period.
In general most Historians are very slack re rigorous research but then most were never trained to be otherwise as a matter of fact some are encouraged to 'bend' the truth to sell books.
Bill Bryson in his book "Shakespeare" has some well chosen words in his inimitable style about them.

Very good Jason,and as I have said many times,old storys make books,and books make Money

Reply

Gunn

9/30/2013 05:21:56 pm

The problem is that, reading between the lines or otherwise, an oath of confidence (secrecy) is being given, and no one really knows the details of such confidence...so there is room for speculation. It can be read more than one way, too, if one is determined enough. In other words, some of the confidences could have involved, not a Jesus Bloodline or Holy Grail, but something else of value...a confidence to protect something perceived as being of value, whether tangible valuables or valuable knowledge.

The passages can be taken as a binding form letter, or as a binding form letter specifying "unspoken" confidence, or secrecy. Is the part about secrecy or confidences always a part of contracts from that era, or is it added for special considerations, for instance?

Unfortunately, the language can be taken two ways, even if just barely, which leaves enough room for idle speculation or even mischief. But, I wonder what the precise "confidences" were, if any, in the above case?

Well, yes. Something of value, like "here are the names of some of your enemies, now that you have promised not to betray that I'm the one who told you." Frankly, that's just as likely--if not MORE likely--to be a "confidence" than Templar secrets, since we don't have any conclusive proof there WERE such things, but EVERY head of state has enemies. The language is vague enough that we can't even be sure that there was an actual secret; in the way that whole thing is phrased, it could easily have meant, "in the event that Sir William shares a secret with the Crown..." Council, for instance, is generally an ongoing thing. I can't swear that all fealty oaths involved pledges of secrecy, but generally it IS pretty standard even today. The modern version is called "confidentiality agreement," and you even have to sign them to work at McDonald's these days.

In short, you can't exclude Templar secrets, artifacts, or esoteric Sinclair knowledge...but you're stretching it thin enough to see COLORS through if you try to make them serious contenders.

Reply

BigMike

9/30/2013 08:41:33 pm

It seems that this letter is, to use a modern legal slang term, boilerplate. The only difference between this letter and any other Oath of Fealty letter would have been the name and location. Instead of Sir William Sinclar of Roslyn it would have been something like Sir Thomas Richard Harrison of Newhere. There may have been some other minor differences depending on what Mary had to promise in order to gain fealty from a lord. You know, minor things like "I hearby promise the hand of my second born daughter in marriage to the first born son of Sir Thomas of Newhere in exchange for his fealty, and a suitable dowry..."
"secrets" in this case clearly refers to potential sensitive issues that Sir William may bring before his new lord rather than information he has already shared.
A letter like this was actually incredibly important for a monarch in Britain at the time. People tend to think that monarchs were free to do whatever they wanted up until the American Revolution. But the Magna Carta an similar declarations by free men and nobles to their monarchs have clearly laid out the responsibilities, duties, and limitations of every monarch. This letter is a declaration of Mary understanding her role as monarch. It's an oath of office just like the one the President of the United States of America takes every four years.

I guess it depends, too, on if Sinclair had esoteric knowledge relating to the Knights Templar. Of course, this is where the "evidence" of Rosslyn Chapel comes in, suggesting that there is a direct link between Templars and Freemasonry. I've beat around the bush on this before, but the best evidence I see, personally, is the carving depicting two men riding a single horse, which is the very iconic symbol of the Knights Templar. Here is a website I stumbled upon while looking for a photo of the image. There's a lot of information that's interesting, like that the founder of the order had married into the French St. Clair line, at the very beginning. There's discussion about the engrailed cross use at the chapel, which the Templars apparently used extensively.

I see a very strong linking of the Knights Templar and Sinclairs and Freemasonry.

Apparently, American was built on such titles combining together into a hearty soup. Our dear old Founding Fathers, chalky as they may be in memory, brought the free soup forward, to us today.

The line forms to the rear. Respect the sign which says: "Freedom isn't Free, Only the Soup Is."

I thank the current Knights Templar, the Freemasons and St. Clairs/Sinclairs everywhere, for any of your personal contributions, and for the contributions of your ancestors. The New Empire is reborn...not from within, but from the East Coast...freedom at last!

Varika

10/1/2013 04:40:12 pm

Gun, I drew a picture of a fairy today. I have lots of pictures of fairies that I've drawn. Does that mean I have some esoteric knowledge of Underhill that no one else does? Not at all. Nor does a carving of two people riding one horse mean that the carver had esoteric knowledge. Hollywood uses "iconic" images all the time, and to be frankly honest, they don't know SHIT about pretty much anything they make a movie about.

In short, while what you have is a link, it's a pretty weak one, and in no way does it connect to Queen Mary's letter above. It strictly links the chapel to the Knights Templar--strictly visually, at that. Given what Michelangelo did to the Sistine Chapel pretty much to directly screw with the Catholic Church that paid for it, you can't even say that it links the owners of the chapel--ie, the Sinclairs--to the Templars.

I'm sorry, I just don't see what you see in the whole thing, and I don't understand why you are so fanatically loyal to your story. What makes it so superior to the history we do know? Why do you cling so desperately to it that no one can challenge it without sending you into conniption fits? I really am trying to understand why it makes so much difference to you, because it doesn't to me. It would fascinate me if any of it turned out to be true, but so would half a dozen other possibilities--and so does what archeology and research actually supports right now. So why are you so deeply attached to this one and only one possibility?

Gerald Sinclair

1/1/2016 10:09:48 pm

That is simply conjecture and waffle, what ever else may have passed between Mary and William this letter does not represent it, It is a standard letter all any historian worth his/her salt has to do is check if anyone else received a similar letter who was a non Sinclair, and they did.
End of story - mixing maybes with facts is dangerous territory and should be handled very carefully and explicitly most of the 'fiction' involving Sinclairs comes the absence of that being done a large % of which comes from one web site where absolutely no distinction is made between undeniable facts with references as we did in The Enigmatic Sinclairs, took us 10 years but we did it; stories from family bibles etc; conjecture and what ifs like you are indulging in; and out right falsehoods - all lumped together and all used by lazy authors as being authoritative. A classic one being that Hugh de Payens married a Sinclair - never happened.
Herodotus known as the first Western Historian laid down the the proper way to handle it - quote the irrevocable fact first, then indulge in discussion of how that came about or what effects it had making clear that is conjecture, which is what I will be doing in Volume 2 on William the Chapel Builder. i.e The Chapel is there no denying that fact you can see it sit in it touch it its real. But why William built it is open to conjecture and theories and so lends itself to the Herodotus modus operandi where in the end the reader must make up their own mind as to the probabilities of the various theories being likely.
Unfortunately his successor quoted opinion as certain facts and that has been the model most historians today who are no better than Historic Novel writers, indeed usually ;less entertaining and quite often less accurate, have followed.

Reply

Gunn Sinclair

10/1/2013 08:36:48 am

Here's some food for thought on the subject, from a somewhat rare Jewish viewpoint:

I guess it really is all about the Temple, and it being rebuilt. The author of this essay can't see a new Temple dominating Temple Mount, in a singular fashion, but I can. This type of prophesy always comes true, as we watch it move forward toward us, day by day.

Unfortunately, there is also the issue of an upcoming One-World government coming toward us. Is "The Order" out of order, or must it be this way?

Reply

Sinclair

10/1/2013 01:18:55 pm

Gunn, let me try to explain some of your mentioned Templar carvings within Rosslyn Chapal, If you look more closely the two men riding one horse actually is one man riding while the other is clearly not on the horse but on the other side of the animal.

Secondly the Sinclair engrailed cross was not used extensively by the Templars, Other families also use this same or very close style of the cross, It is believed the cross was used by these families during the crusades and was used after as a symble to indicate that, The cross was to show that the knight not the family was there in the service of god and willing to give all even life in the crusades.There is a carving in the chapal of a man holding a shield that has the Sinclair cross on it, Im not exactly sure as to when the St.Clair/Sinclair family first started to use the cross as a Family emblem or in their coat of arms but Im sure it can be found out,

I personally think there is a Templar connection but so much false information has been put out regarding this that it throws the research off track of any real information that may be out there

Thirdly the stone in Rosslyn chapal was put in there by none other than Niven Sinclair, Its a very small place stone,that came from some other grave yard nearby,It is clearly set in modern day cement as only the small stone on top is actually the stone they talk about, The stone is interesting though and clearly shows the templar cross within,

http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/Rosslyn_Chapel_and_2012.html

Reply

Gunn

10/1/2013 01:53:03 pm

Yes, I can see that you are correct about the horsemanship imagery. I wondered about that before, but the accompanying text mentioned two riders, stylized. But obviously, one man is a soldier and the other seems, in my opinion, to be a monk. I think this signifies the relationship between the Cistercians and the Templars, as seen riding or at least working together. To me, this may be as important as the image being of two Templars riding together.

Like Wolter, I strongly suspect Cistercian monk involvement in connection with the medieval activity surrounding the KRS. Were Swedish Cistercian monks working with Swedish Templar-remnants in their medieval treks to inland America? It kind of looks like it.

Thanks for the other information, too.

Reply

Sinclair

10/1/2013 04:21:42 pm

Document 1/51/1 (Foedera, i, II, 781)
DescriptionOn Thursday following [the 19th day of November 1292], at Norham, in the castle of the same villa, John de Balliol, king of Scotland came and, in the presence of John, archbishop of Dublin, Anthony, bishop of Durham, William, bishop of St Andrews, Robert, bishop of Glasgow, William, bishop of Ely, John, bishop of Carlisle, and also Henry de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, John, earl of Buchan, William, earl of Ross, Patrick, earl of March, Walter, earl of Menteith, James, steward of Scotland; Alexander of Argyll, Alexander de Balliol, lord of Cavers, Patrick Graham, and William Sinclair, and many others of the realms of England and Scotland, made and swore fealty to the lord king of England in his presence, speaking in French: “I, John de Balliol, king of Scots, shall become faithful and loyal to you, lord Edward, king of England and overlord of the realm of Scotland, and I give fealty to you for the same realm of Scotland, which I hold and claim to hold of you, and I bring to you faith and fealty of life, limb and earthly honour, against all men, faithfully recognising and giving service to you, owed from the said realm of Scotland as God may favour me and these Holy Gospels.”.
Firm dateThursday 20 November 1292 .
Dating NotesThursday following, that is, the 20th day of November, in the feast of Blessed Edmund, king and martyr, King Edward's 20th year.
Place date (modern)Norham.
Place date (document)Norham.
Related PlaceNorham.
Source for Data EntryFoedera, i, II, 781.
Trad. IDFoedera, i, II, 781.
Calendar number1/51/1 .
Charter typeNotification.
LanguageLatin.

Reply

Sinclair

10/1/2013 04:29:39 pm

Sorry this was supposed to be with the last post, This is just one record showing the importance of Sir William StClare back in the day. He if any Sinclair may very well have been a Templar, He was well known and was in the service of the King and Im sure privilaged to many Secrets lol

Reply

Gunn

10/2/2013 08:59:52 am

Why a last post?

Weird, I didn't see anything about confidences within the fealty.

By directly associating the navigational knowledge of the Swedes (back to the Viking era) with the growing assumption on my part that the KRS and stoneholes were made by Swedes, I am comfortable in saying that it looks to me like the KRS expedition, and other expeditions to the upper Mid-west, were made by Christian Swedes who took advantage of earlier Viking exploration knowledge.

Perhaps there was not any Swedish Templar-remnant activity, but Cistercian monk activity, along with Swedish "protectors." Perhaps the protectors had a Templar background. It looks like hooked X's on the KRS MAY indicate a Templar influence, but it isn't a sure thing, according to Richard Nielsen. Other Christians used the symbol.

It looks to me like the apparent medieval activity up here was a mostly Swedish thing, which makes sense because of their Viking past. But surely the politics of the day (mid-Fourteenth century) made things secretive, and it looks to me like the KRS is only a snapshot in time, frustrating those who would like to know more. But its a medieval snapshot of the upper Mid-west of America, taken from a specific region in Old Scandinavia, with help from past Vikings mapping knowledge. (Vinland was a real place.)

Where any Templar-remnants may fit in, I don't know. I suppose one would have to zero in on the Gotaland area and see what happened there, politically and otherwise, in the 50 years or so leading up to the placing of the memorial KRS. We wouldn't be looking for Templars, obviously; we would be looking for post-Templar activity and politics, of a distinct Old Swedish flavor. Maybe there's something more in the record there in the Old Country that can help shed more light about all of this. In the meanwhile, I think logical speculation is helpful.

Increasing the pace of professional archaeological digs may help, along with more people searching through old records.

Reply

Steve St Clair

10/2/2013 05:23:40 pm

Drako said, "…the importance of Sir William StClare back in the day. He if any Sinclair may very well have been a Templar…"

Precisely the opposite is true. Important people didn't become Templar knights. To do so would have meant you had to give up your land, your wealth, and your wife. Important people didn't do that.

What important people did was support the Templar order with gifts of land or monies. Yet there is no record of the Rosslyn Sinclairs, or any other Sinclairs or St. Clairs (like the Herdmanstons - the original family in Scotland) doing so. Some may choose to imagine the Sinclairs or St. Clairs were Templars but there is, as yet, not one scrap of documentary evidence that proves it.

There is an actual record of a Sinclair testifying agains the Templars of Scotland. There is ALSO an actual record of that same Sinclair's father testifying on behalf of the same Templars.

Gunn, there is a photo of that man standing behind the horses flank at this link -
http://stclairdna.blogspot.com/2013/02/note-to-young-st-clair-researcher.html

Reply

Sir Gunn Sinclair

10/3/2013 06:50:07 am

Thanks, the photo is great, very close-up and angled to clearly see the 2nd person. He looks like a monk with a cross in his hand, except I thought most monks had peculiar hair-styles? Also, no sign of a robe, or hooded robe. I wonder what the figure is supposed to represent, precisely? Obviously, Christianity, but in what form? It shows military strength and Christianity combined, an obvious Templar trait.

In the case of the placing of the KRS, there also appears to be this combination...if one considers that the expeditionary force had suitable weapons of the day. A distinct blending of armed strength and Godliness, if one would care to characterize a land-grab this way.

The Sinclair/Templar connection issue really isn't that important to me. There must be some connection in the family line during the two hundred years of the Crusades, but who is to say what role they played, either is supporting the cause or fighting directly. Common sense dictates that there were St. Clairs and close relatives involved in the Crusades, because they were "important people." How the attachments lingered long afterward seems to be important to various lines of Sinclairs, but to me it doesn't matter, as I've only taken on the very temporary pen-name of Sir Gunn Sinclair...a very noteworthy and distinctive-looking name, at least.

Important Sinclairs would have been privy to important navigational knowledge during this medieval period, and leading up to 1400 or so, the time of the "mythical" Henry Sinclair in America. It seems logical to conclude that Sinclairs were privy to, and shared a degree of navigational knowledge during this period. Glooscap may not be entirely imaginary in the eyes of East Coast Native Americans. The Chippewa migration from the East Coast may not be entirely imaginary in the eyes of these Native peoples. At the least, there is some oddity about this...possibly something more than mere coincidence.

But Sinclairs being Templars is a question for a much earlier period than 1400. 1300 is more appropriate, and at the mid-way point between the two (or 1362), I would be curious to know what any "important" St. Clairs knew about pre-Columbian adventures into the heartland of America. But the KRS seems to indicate an almost total "Swedish" expedition, so how would any Sinclairs be tied in? The Newport Tower? They probably weren't, unless they were somehow connected with Swedes during that mid-Fourteenth century period.

It's looking more to me like the Portuguese were involved with the Newport Tower, unless one takes at faith what two separate Native American Nations are saying. Are the Newport Tower and the KRS related? Only possibly. One thing is certain: there was plenty of secretive navigating and exploration going on during this period...there just wasn't much documented about such explorations until a hundred years later.

But puzzle pieces are being fitted into the picture little by little. Old secrets are being exposed, and we are getting a better picture of what may have happened, and how.

Reply

gerald sinclair

1/1/2016 10:15:24 pm

There is also wording in one of their charters explicitly guaranteeing them protection from any Templar claims on the land.

Reply

Sean

10/2/2013 10:21:07 pm

I was amused by the reference to the "modern connotation" of mistress. I guess he's referring to mistress in the sense of 'bit on the side'; which is at least 500 years old. If mistress has a modern connotation, it's definitely something to do with BDSM.

Reply

Joe

10/3/2013 04:46:57 pm

Good Evening,

I first want to compliment Jason on a great article. A great example of how alternative historians leap to conclusions due to their lack of understanding when it comes to the use of language and culture practices of previous generations.

I find it interesting that you can find a prime example of one of their techniques in the corresponding blog comments. Not to pick on Gunn again, but how you create linking narratives when presented information appears to be one of the methods employed by the alternative history community. You looked at some of the images on the internet of Rosslyn Chapel and because it says it is two men on a horse and that is a typical Templar symbol, you link Henry St. Clair with the Templars. Then another participant corrected you on the image stating it was one man on the horse and another standing next to it. Instead of dropping the templar issue and maybe reexamining the image or your presumption you just change the Templar narrative to the new information. To quote you “ But obviously, one man is a soldier and the other seems, in my opinion, to be a monk. I think this signifies the relationship between the Cistercians and the Templars, as seen riding or at least working together. To me, this may be as important as the image being of two Templars riding together”. This to me seems like one of the reasons these types of movements gain strength. People like Jason, spend a lot of time researching to disprove many of these outlandish theories. But instead of dissuading these individuals they first claim a cover up. Which is ridiculous, if there was a mass government or international coverup going on how would there even be a TV show or countless books available to present these theories. Then they change their narrative on the theory so the can get it to connect to any information they want to. I would give them credit for being creative but all they really do is find new ways to present lazy theories from the past.

Well, Joe, you didn't explain your complaint very well. I find it odd that you think it preposterous for me to recognize that the second figure, possibly being a monk, would be as important as if it were two soldiers. After all, again, it is this linking of strength and faith that I see in the KRS, all things considered. What's wrong with seeing the combination of faith and strength, rather than the acknowledged symbol of Templars, that of two soldiers on a single horse? When I saw my error and the correction, I also saw an opportunity to make lemonade out of a tart lemon, and you're complaining? How delightful that image is, now that we're that much closer to realizing what it actually is, and what it probably means. You trivialize this gain of personal insight, yet it is my delight. In fact, thank you again, Sinclair, for bringing it to my attention. The image means something more to me now, and it also fits nicely into my KRS speculations...in this case, the image in question reinforces in my mind the perceived necessity of both force and faith in those medieval explorations. Well, for Columbus later, too....

Reply

Gunn

10/3/2013 06:25:20 pm

...Unlike the later fearless Jesuits, who ventured forth unarmed. I think of Father Hennepin, who was captured by Native Americans and held for several months, not far from where I now live...in Hennepin County, MN.

Only Me

10/4/2013 03:57:55 pm

Allow me to try to clarify what he meant. Originally, you believed the image to be a Templar icon. That allowed you to speculate a Templar-St. Clair connection. When it was clarified to be the image of one man on horseback, with another standing to the side, you opined that the one standing was a Cistercian monk. Therefore, the mounted figure was a Templar, and once again, a Templar-St. Clair connection.

You see, the interpretation of the image changed, but instead of re-evaluating the meaning of its context, which affects the basis of your speculation, you rearranged your speculation so that the image still supports it.

Also, I don't mean to nitpick, but you mentioned the image led to a gain in personal insight. Shouldn't your sentence say "now that I'M that much closer" instead of "now that WE'RE that much closer"?

Gunn

10/5/2013 01:16:26 pm

Only Me, the image still contained a Templar, so my original speculation didn't change. The connection I was making was between Sinclair and Rosslyn Castle, which contains the image. It is still a Templar in the image. In other words, my changed interpretation did not affect the basis of my original speculation. I rearranged my speculation, but the image always supported it in the first place...the image being of a Templar, though not the iconic image of two Templars. My original point of drawing a connection between Sinclair and Templar imagery at Rosslyn Chapel didn't change, just the exact meaning of the horse and men. So Bill's complaint is baseless, as is your support of his supposition. Sorry. It's pretty hard to catch ole Gunn asleep in the wheelhouse, but nice try.

I said "we're" because I was including the one or two people I had hoped to convince of something along the way. See, my new clarity about the image extended to my imaginary blog friends.

Steve St Clair

10/5/2013 03:17:11 pm

Gunn, what evidence is there that the one man in armor on a horse is a Templar Knight? I know of no verifiable Templar symbols in Rosslyn.

Joe

10/5/2013 05:37:41 pm

First I would like thank “Only Me” for clarifying my original point. I am sorry that my argument was not stated more clearly. To follow up on Gunn's response it appears that Steve responded before I could get to it. Gunn at every piece of your argument you take some information and again add your own narrative or speculation to that article or information. This time you are taking a man on a horse and declaring it a templar, and another man standing near the horse as a monk. How do you assume these roles for these characters? On most of your arguments or responses you create an explanation that is based on nothing else but your opinion. How do you expect anyone to take your stories as a serious look at history when you admit it is based on your own speculation?

I think this goes back to Jason's original point that these alternative histories refuse to use scientific practices or dedicated research. That their theories are more of a religious belief then any scientific or researched theory. That their belief to the theory is much more important to any individual piece of information or evidence. Even when their evidence is shown to be bogus or inaccurate, it does not detract from the theory in whole. They just move the narrative to fit the new data, Gunn did it here just like Wolter has done it before. Gunn I know that it appears I am attacking you and this I am sorry, but I am just pointing out that no matter the evidence presented you find a way to link it all back to your original thought. The example of the image at Rosslyn chapel is just one example, but if you go back and look at several different blog posts you can see this continued pattern. Instead of trying to fit the data into your narrative try looking at it on its merits and go from there.

"How do you expect anyone to take your stories as a serious look at history when you admit it is based on your own speculation?"

"I am just pointing out that no matter the evidence presented you find a way to link it all back to your original thought."

Yes, yes, this is the idea, Joe, linking it all back to my original thought, which is based on speculation. I didn't sign any affidavits. Let's shorten this up: Seeing on the horse a military figure, or a fighting man, combined with Christianity, from the other man clutching a cross, gives me the impression that there is being symbolized this image of armed strength and God. Nothing changes. The symbol of two knights on a horse is recognized as giving the same bottom line: armed strength and God, the very combination seen in Templars. Similarly, I see a connection between all the engrailed crosses at Rosslyn and Templars.

Here's the question: if William Sinclair had much to do with the building of the chapel, and the chapel is supposed to be representing a sort of history, don't you think Wm would've included some Templar history? In other words, how could there NOT be any Templar symbolism representing Templar history?

I think there is a dreadful avoidance in some persons' minds about purposeful Templar imagery existing at the chapel. It's not a total compliment to "Templarism," but it seems to include things Templar. That's just the way I see it...so zeroing-in on this particular image of the horse and two figures does, still, in my mind, relate to the Templar ideology to be seen and understood at Rosslyn Chapel. I think now you get it.

Do I look at these things through a colored prism? Yes. Sometimes I have to use my peripheral vision, not looking too directly at what other people see, as I change my mind and adapt new information into my ever-shifting paradigm that I'm trying to hold steady.

Of course, my paradigm heavily favors pre-Columbus adventurism into medieval America. Yes, Joe, definitely, absolutely, precisely, I want my backyard to have once been the focus of a New Jerusalem attempt, say around 1362.

And now, iIf Templars stopped off at the future site of Rosslyn Chapel on the way here, wouldn't that be exciting?! Whoa...let's hold this paradigm steady....I'm starting to take on some water, and I seem to be drifting at the portside!

Joe

10/7/2013 06:13:51 pm

I know I shouldn't respond based on your last post. But I guess I can not help myself when someone comes back with utter honesty about their point but at the same time seem to be pointless in their argument. First I do appreciate the honest response in stating the below.

“Of course, my paradigm heavily favors pre-Columbus adventurism into medieval America. Yes, Joe, definitely, absolutely, precisely, I want my backyard to have once been the focus of a New Jerusalem attempt, say around 1362.”

To not be repetitive, but again in this statement along you continue to show that your want is more important then the information you use to frame your story. But even when you try to present any data or information to frame your argument you again cherry pick the data that you want to hear while ignoring the total picture. You continue to attempt to tie images of Rosslyn Chapel to Templar influence.

Now I am not any type of expert on Rosslyn Chapel or the Templars, but based on very limited research into the Chapel I can find several different types of images in the design. Some are Christian, some appear to be of Scottish heritage and some are Pagan in origin. Based on this am I to assume that Mr. William Sinclair participated in Pagan rituals??? Of course not, it is ridiculous to base an assumption on the person that financed and originated the project with the images on that project. Again based on very limited research about the chapel it became aware to me that it took over 40 years from the original plans to the end of construction. The project only ended with the death of William Sinclair. Again based on the limited information I have on the particulars of this Chapel it is still hard to believe that one person oversaw every image and sculpture that was created for this Chapel in its 40 years of construction. Based on my understanding of other architectural projects that occurred during similar time frames, it was the architect and the artisans that did a majority of the intricate designs of many aspects of these larger scale buildings.

But I do not think there is an avoidance of acknowledging Templar evidence when it is present. The issue is when there is a lack of evidence and you try to create evidence from your imagination. But this is exactly your argument from before. You want there to be evidence of Templars in America and Templars at Rosslyn so you use the work of Scott Wolter, a known fabricator, Dan Brown, a fiction writer, and other alternative historians to justify your grand story in your head.

At this point I am sure I am spinning my wheels in my argument and maybe have ranted on to0 far for on such a trivial point. It is obviously apparent that you have already created your story and will not budge off of it no matter the argument. So I guess the real question I have, why do you continue to participate on a blog of a debunk-er of the theory that you hold so dear?

Reply

Gunn

10/8/2013 11:33:33 am

Well, for one thing, I like to incite conversation. You have a lot of this wrong though, still, Joe. I want there to be Scandinavian expeditions into the upper Mid-west in medieval times, but I don't care that they have Templar connections. I suppose it would be nice since there's so much conjecture about it, but the Templar angle isn't important to me. The evidences I see up here indicate a Swedish thing, possibly a Viking Swedish thing even earlier. If nothing else, you may have read here that I take the KRS for what it says, and it says nothing concrete about Templars or Templar-remnants. Wolter thinks the hooked X indicates a Templar influence. He may be right or not. My interest is strong in the subject of the KRS, even without considering a Templar angle.

There does seem to be some Templar imagery at Rosslyn if you look at the Freemason imagery and perhaps compare that to earlier Templar imagery, correct or not? And there's still all the engrailed crosses. If Freemasonry derived from Templar doctrine, there seems to be Templar imagery at Rosslyn, correct or not?

Only Me

10/8/2013 11:51:54 am

"If Freemasonry derived from Templar doctrine..."

That is the rub, isn't it? During some of my research, I found a Templar website that stated unequivocally that there was no connection between the two. The idea that there was, is just speculation, at this time. I have to give the Templar statement more credibility, until something is found that legitimately challenges this view.

Now, I've wondered if throughout its history, Rosslyn Chapel may not have had some "additions", politically or materially motivated, to possibly enforce or strengthen the case for a Templar-Freemasonry line of descent.

Sinclair

10/5/2013 06:33:18 am

Henry Sinclair and Hugh de Rydale expressing their good opinion of the late Commander of Balantrodock ( Temple )

Lord Henry Sinclair said that he had see commander of Temple on his deathbed,
receiving the eucharist very devoutly,so far as onlookers could judge,Then Lord Hugh
de Rydale said that the same commander used to give gifts because he did not go to the
general chapters,and he believed that he did this so that he would not have to assent to the
crimes that had now been confessed by the superiors of his order.

Reply

Gerald Sinclair

10/6/2013 08:20:19 pm

I will leave the Kight Templar discussion to Steve except to say there are no primary source documents that show Sinclairs bequeathing land to the Knights Templar, in fact the charter from William De Lisours to Stephen Melville re the so called Templar lands at Gouerton includes "and I and my heirs will guarantee, quit and defend forever the said lands with all the above liberties and easements, ....against all templar men and women."

A generation Walter Melville son of the above Stephen grants the same land "to Lord William de Sinclair, the whole of my land which is called Templeland, in the fee of Gouerton .....Indeed I and my heirs will guarantee, quit and defend forever the said land, with all the aforementioned liberties and easements, to the aforementioned Lord William and his heirs or their assigneess, against all peoples."

On the Mary de Guise matter the answer is actually quite simple as we will show in Volume II of our forthcoming books "The Sinclairs in Scotland" A Definitive Guide which are solely based on verifibale primary source documents.